Vaccination has reduced rotavirus hospitalizations by 25% in European regions with low–moderate vaccine availability. We aimed to quantify the reduction in hospital costs after the longest period in which Rotarix® and Rotateq® were simultaneously commercially available in Spain. Cases, length of stay (LOS), and diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) were retrieved from the Minimum Basic Data Set. Healthcare expenditure was estimated through the cost accounting system Gescot®. DRGs were clustered: I, non-bacterial gastroenteritis with complications; II, without complications; III, requiring surgical/other procedures or neonatal cases (highest DRG weights). Comparisons between pre (2003–2005)- and post-vaccine (2007–2009) hospital stays and costs by DRG group were made. Rotaviruses were the most common agents of specific-coded gastroenteritis (N = 1657/5012). LOS and extended LOS of rotaviruses fell significantly in 2007–2009 (β-coefficient = −0·43, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) −0·68 to −0·17; and odds ratio 0·62, 95% CI 0·50–0·76, respectively). Overall, costs attributable to rotavirus hospitalizations fell approximately €244 per patient (95% CI −365 to −123); the decrease in DRG group III was €2269 per patient (95% CI −4098 to −380). We concluded modest savings in hospital costs, largely attributable to cases with higher DRG weights, and a faster recovery. A universal rotavirus vaccination program deserves being re-evaluated, regarding its potential high impact on both at-risk children and societal costs.

The objective of this study was to estimate the direct financial costs of hospital care for management of invasive group A streptococcal (GAS) infections using hospital records for cases diagnosed in England. We linked laboratory-confirmed cases (n = 3696) identified through national surveillance to hospital episode statistics and reimbursement codes. From these codes we estimated the direct hospital costs of admissions. Almost all notified invasive GAS cases (92% of 3696) were successfully matched to a primary hospital admission. Of these, secondary admissions (within 30 days of primary admission) were further identified for 593 (17%). After exclusion of nosocomial cases (12%), the median costs of primary and secondary hospital admissions were estimated by subgroup analysis as £1984–£2212 per case, totalling £4·43–£6·34 million per year in England. With adjustment for unmatched cases this equated to £4·84–£6·93 million per year. Adults aged 16–64 years accounted for 48% of costs but only 40% of cases, largely due to an increased number of surgical procedures. The direct costs of hospital admissions for invasive GAS infection are substantial. These estimated costs will contribute to a full assessment of the total economic burden of invasive GAS infection as a means to assess potential savings through prevention measures.

Objectives: To develop and evaluate strategies for estimating hospitalization costs in multinational clinical trials.

Methods: Hospital cost estimates for eleven diagnoses were collected from twelve countries participating in a trial of therapies for congestive heart failure. Estimates were combined with U.S.-based diagnosis-related group weights to compute country-specific unit cost estimates for all reasons for hospitalization. Variations of hospital costing methods were developed. The unit cost method assigns a country-specific unit cost estimate to each hospitalization. The other methods adjust for length of stay using a daily cost (DC) estimate for each diagnosis, based on either the mean length of stay (DC-mean method) or the median length of stay (DC-median method) for each diagnosis in each country. Additional modifications were explored through adjustment of the distribution of daily costs incurred during a hospital stay.

Results: The mean cost for all hospitalizations was $10,242 (SD, 10,042) using the unit cost method, $10,242 (SD, 12,760) using the standard DC-mean method, and $13,967 (SD, 18,762) using the standard DC-median method. In comparisons of costs for all 5,486 hospitalizations incurred by a subset of 2,352 patients in the trial, the unit cost method provided 92% power to detect a $1,000 cost difference. The standard DC-mean method provided 76% power, and the standard DC-median method provided 44% power.

Conclusions: Hospital costing methods that adjust for differences in length of stay require a significantly larger sample to attain comparable statistical power as methods that assign unadjusted unit cost estimates to hospitalization events.

Objectives: Much has been written about the costs and cost-effectiveness of community care for people with learning disabilities resettled from long stay hospital care. However, comparatively little has been published about the cost of hospital services relating to the preparatory process before eventual resettlement and the disengagement of formal, sustained input from hospital staff. This study describes and costs the input provided by a hospital based multi-disciplinary team into the resettlement of adults with learning disabilities from long stay wards in Muckamore Abbey Hospital in Northern Ireland between 1996 and 1999 (n = 71).

Method: The study employs a retrospective survey design. Information about the nature and frequency of the input of each member of hospital multi-disciplinary team was collected for each former client. According to the level of professional resources expended during the resettlement process, each former client was then categorised into one of three categories. One case was then selected at random to represent each category. A summary of clinical information, a description of the resettlement process and an estimate of the cost of the process was provided for each case.

Results: Approximately 55% of people resettled in the community during the study period did so with a modest degree of input from hospital staff. For 18% resettlement proved to be a demanding and prolonged process, requiring intensive input from hospital staff. Financial costs of the resettlement process ranged from approximately stg£1,500 to stg£8,000, with an average of stg£3,400 for each person.

Conclusion: This study provides evidence of the input by hospital staff into the process of community resettlement of long stay hospital clients and the associated costs. These costs must be included in service budgets if quality care and appropriate service provision is to be maintained in resettlement practice.

An acute pain service (APS) was set up to improve pain management after operation. We attempted to reduce the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) of patients undergoing major surgery and to improve their homeostasis and rehabilitation using a multimodal approach (pain relief, stress reduction, early extubation). Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) was a keystone of this approach. If PCEA was not applicable, patients received patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) instead. Brachial plexus blockade (BPB) was used for surgery of the upper limbs. A computer based documentation system was used to help evaluate prospectively (a) the quality of analgesia, (b) adverse effects and risks of the special pain management techniques, and (c) cost-effectiveness.

Patients receiving PCEA (n = 5.602) received a patient-titrated continuous infusion into the epidural space of either bupivacaine 0.175% or ropivacaine 0.2%, with 1 μg sufentanil mL−1 added, followed by patient-controlled boluses of 2 mL (lockout time 20 min). For patients receiving PCIA (n = 634) an initial bolus of 7.5–15 mg piritramide was given, and the subsequent bolus was 2 mg (lockout time 10 min). A continuous infusion of bupivacaine 0.25% was administered to patients receiving BPB (n = 113). The dose was titrated to a dynamic visual analogue scale (VAS) scores < 40.

The mean treatment periods were: BPB = 4.33 days, PCEA = 5.6 days, PCIA = 5.0 days. In the case of PCEA, the quality of pain relief, vigilance and satisfaction were superior compared with the PCIA method, which resulted in greater sedation and nausea. Although personal supervision was higher for the PCEA-treated patients, cost analysis revealed final savings of €91 620 for the year 1998 obviating the need for an ICU stay totalling 433 days.

Provided that PCEA is part of a fast-track protocol employing early tracheal extubation and optimal perioperative management, the associated initial higher costs will be recouped by the benefits to patients of better pain relief after surgery and fewer days subsequently spent in the ITU.

Objectives: To assess the economics of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) treatment versus regular intramuscular (IM) injections of opioid analgesia for pain management after hysterectomy.

Methods: Cost-minimization analysis was used based on the comparable pain control results achieved in the two treatment groups. Observations were taken of treatment-related events with personnel (mostly nursing) time implications during the trial. Times were then associated with these events in an independent study of personnel activity. Costs were linked by using average wage rates for the various personnel for the Montreal area during the time of the study. Drug and material costs were hospital acquisition costs for all items. The cost of the PCA pump itself was not included in the analysis. Several analyses were performed to test the sensitivity of the results to various assumptions.

Results: The results for total costs of the two therapies generally showed PCA to be more costly than regular IM injections despite no costs of the pump being included in the analyses. These results were robust with respect to changes in assumptions. Even when intentionally biasing the analysis against IM therapy, it was difficult to obtain results that favored PCA.

Conclusions: Based upon the institutions and assumptions in this analysis, PCA offers no cost advantages over regular IM therapy in the pain management after hysterectomy. Regular IM injections provided less costly analgesia.